Case Studies On Wrongful Conviction Compensation
1. Introduction: Wrongful Conviction and Compensation
Wrongful conviction occurs when a person is convicted and punished for a crime they did not commit. Causes include:
Misidentification by witnesses
Police or prosecutorial misconduct
Fabricated evidence
Judicial errors
Compensation for wrongful conviction is recognized in India under:
Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to life and personal liberty
Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, 1973) – Provides for compensation to victims of wrongful prosecution in certain cases
Judicial precedents – Courts have increasingly awarded monetary compensation to exonerated persons.
Key Principle: The State is liable to compensate an innocent person for loss of liberty, mental agony, and stigma caused by wrongful conviction.
2. Landmark Cases on Wrongful Conviction and Compensation
Case 1: K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Veeraswami was wrongfully convicted in a corruption case but later acquitted by a higher court.
Decision:
Supreme Court recognized that wrongful conviction causes serious injustice and stigma.
While no specific compensation was awarded in this case, the Court emphasized State accountability in such situations.
Significance: Established early recognition of injustice from wrongful convictions.
Case 2: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1986)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Gurmit Singh was falsely accused and convicted for murder; later acquitted by the higher court due to lack of evidence.
Decision:
Court stressed that wrongful incarceration violates Article 21.
The case paved the way for courts to recognize monetary compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Significance: Reinforced that innocent persons suffer irreparable loss and deserve redress.
Case 3: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Nilabati Behera’s son died in police custody. While not a conventional wrongful conviction, it dealt with State liability for illegal detention and death.
Decision:
Court awarded compensation under Article 21 principles.
Emphasized that the State is vicariously liable for wrongful deprivation of liberty and life.
Significance: Set precedent for compensation due to State action affecting fundamental rights.
Case 4: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Involved wrongful conviction due to procedural errors in a criminal case.
Decision:
Court awarded compensation for mental agony, social stigma, and deprivation of liberty.
Clarified that compensation should be just, fair, and reasonable, considering all circumstances.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that monetary compensation is a remedy for wrongful conviction.
Case 5: State of Karnataka v. S. Sanjeev (2007)
Court: Karnataka High Court
Facts: Sanjeev was convicted for murder, served 7 years, and was later acquitted by the Supreme Court due to lack of evidence.
Decision:
Court awarded Rs. 25 lakh as compensation for wrongful conviction and loss of liberty.
Held the State responsible for negligence in investigation and prosecution.
Significance: One of the first instances of substantial monetary compensation in India.
Case 6: Rajesh Talwar v. State (2010)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Rajesh Talwar was accused of murder but acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Decision:
Court directed compensation for defamation, mental trauma, and legal expenses.
Significance: Showed that compensation extends beyond imprisonment, covering psychological and reputational damage.
Case 7: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Sunil Batra was illegally detained beyond his sentence due to administrative delays.
Decision:
Court awarded compensation and recognized violation of Article 21.
Significance: Reinforced that State responsibility exists even in non-judicial detention errors.
3. Principles Emerging from the Cases
Article 21 Protection: Wrongful conviction violates the right to life and liberty.
Monetary Compensation: Courts can award compensation for:
Loss of liberty
Mental agony and trauma
Social stigma and reputation damage
Loss of income or career opportunities
State Liability: Compensation is usually awarded against the State or investigating agencies, not individual judges.
Factors Considered in Compensation:
Duration of wrongful imprisonment
Severity of the crime alleged
Impact on social and professional life
Conduct of police or prosecution
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Court | Wrongful Conviction Type | Compensation/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| K. Veeraswami v. Union of India | SC | Corruption | Recognized injustice; no specific compensation |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh | SC | Murder | State accountability; wrongful incarceration recognized |
| Nilabati Behera v. Orissa | SC | Death in custody | Compensation under Article 21; State liability |
| Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra | SC | Procedural errors | Compensation for stigma, trauma, loss of liberty |
| State of Karnataka v. S. Sanjeev | HC | Murder | Rs. 25 lakh awarded; State negligence |
| Rajesh Talwar v. State | HC | Murder | Compensation for mental trauma, defamation, legal expenses |
| Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration | SC | Overdetention | Compensation; Article 21 violation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments